From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:59:00 +0200 Message-ID: <87blapln0r.fsf@posteo.net> References: <9c9af088-580f-9fb1-4d79-237a74ce605c@inventati.org> <874kgkxxs0.fsf@posteo.net> <78741fe6-2612-d7c9-2bc4-0b68ea7fa51a@yandex.ru> <76a4d0e2-117b-165d-d56e-5bc2f504b50c@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2887"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 08 01:00:00 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lUH9U-0000dw-Oj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 01:00:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35228 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUH9T-0001HT-F4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:59:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUH8g-0000Yq-RR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:59:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:57629) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUH8c-0000uY-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:59:09 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3CB2400FD for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:59:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1617836341; bh=gEcbAg+vYsInJa51oatqU2L3zvSJ7C67N9CYCx6dceA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=kgsQqUdUcC257lFEmm7QnWLpzvhbW0zXv3ZO8DA7jVSoOobrBg2braE2tmKjieJlK mH0JmeQWS9QXIXNIsNI/xg3XYdV0bKmfTETTkonA6FgyvTlqw68WMAFCPQ6yQrR7lM Jw2P6DpXLH/PWErujbdCgvTBxyG6oqRHdzpZ4lqBkx0SZGhNGWfUu3Cik+qVPnyN6q emISy+3boQU7zK+rTXw7BwxZD/ExJWih9LaZhDFUE8d/dMojR9s4IwewasrcgiWs72 RkVKEQF9W8WfkuOA76KRer5BAr3dppdQSn5GxqLL105WZJ6gIOvNTwyXztUCAmq3s1 BeyHr37Go9AlA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FG0FK0Xvkz6tm9; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:59:01 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <76a4d0e2-117b-165d-d56e-5bc2f504b50c@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:56:42 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:267585 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > What I was disagreeing in the previous message, is whether it's worth > to create a semantic distinction between completing-read and > selecting-read. How would a Lisp author choose between the two? The > former should actually be more powerful (it will retain support for > TAB completion, and yet it could still be supported by selection-style > frameworks such as Company or Ivy); completing-read can be more powerful, as it includes expanding text and selecting items, but I if you are not interested in text-expansion you should probably limit yourself to selection, so that everyone is ensured to have the same presentation. > the latter, on the other hand, would effectively mandate a minimum > "niceness" of the UI (though not necessarily nicer than the former, > depending on user customization), but would be unable to support more > advanced completion tables. Such as ones with "fields" (which includes > file name completion). What do you mean by "niceness", and why would it not be able to support more complex tables? -- Philip K.